On
CAR Rapes,
Malcorra to
Budget Comt'e
& Their
Response,
Ladsous Should
Resign

By
Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED
NATIONS,
May 18 --
French
soldiers in
the Central
African
Republic
allegedly
sexually
abused
children, as
exposed in a
UN Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights report
leaked to the
French
government by
longtime OHCHR
staffer Anders
Kompass.

On the
afternoon of
May 18 some in
the UN's Ban
Ki-moon
administration
were summoned
into the Fifth
(Budget)
Committee to
answer
questions.
Inner City
Press, staking
out the
meeting, spoke
with Ban's
chief of staff
Susana Malcorra
when she left
the meeting.
Here is a
transcript,
followed by an
exclusive
summary of
what happened
inside the
closed meeting.

Inner
City Press:
How did it go
in there? Are
their
questions
answered?

CdC
Malcorra: Well
I hope, yes.
Some of them
still have
questions that
will be
answered by my
colleague. I
think I’ve
made a point
of what it is
that we’re
discussing
here. This
investigation
is a UN
investigation.
It was led by
the UN in the
field when
they had
allegations
handed to
them. It was
the human
rights cell in
the mission
that led this
investigation.
It looks like
we were
absent, but it
was us...

And
this
investigation
could, at
least prima
facie, there
were places
clear enough
to further
investigate by
the member
state. And as
such, the
information
was provided
to a member
state. On a
separate
front, is how
the
information is
provided. And
we cannot
accept the
irresponsibility
of the names
of the
victims, the
witnesses and
the
investigators
shared with
the member
states ...
it’s
inacceptable.
It may look
like a
bureaucratic
approach. It’s
not a
bureaucratic
approach...

Inner
City Press:
What about not
telling
Central
African
Republic
authorities?

CdC
Malcora: They
are discussing
that now.

After the
meeting ended,
and Inner City
Press spoke
with numerous
attendees - a
common refrain
was that the
UN leadership
is "in denial"
- we have
pieced
together this
summary of the
meeting, and
the totally insufficient
answer on UN
Peacekeeping
chief Ladsous'
role, a lack
of recognition
of his UNAMID
mission's
previous cover
up of rapes in
Tabit in
Darfur, which
the US and UK
and other say
they care
about, and
lack of follow
up on
whistleblowers.

Attendees'
summary of Ban
Ki-moon chief
of staff Malcorra:

"Malcorra
said she had
no idea the
session would
go into the
specifics of
CAR, she
thought it was
to touch upon
general Sexual
Abuse and
Exploitation
policy
(several
attendees were
dubious and
angry about
this
approach.)

Malcorra said
that in the
case of
misconduct by
UN staff the
procedures
were in place.
In this case,
even when it
was not UN
peacekeepers
the human
rights cell in
Bangui was
there and they
were the ones
that initiated
the
investigation.
It is thanks
to the UN that
allegations
were
substantiated
and it was
enough to
decide to
proceed with a
further
investigation.

The wrongdoing
of the UN
staffer Anders
Kompass was to
have shared
the
information
without it
being redacted
putting the
victims,
witnesses and
investigators
lives in
danger. She
repeated many
times this was
a serious
breach and
that she
disagreed with
anyone that
didn’t view
this conduct
wrong.

According to
Malcorra the
UN
investigation
lasted three
months which
allowed them
to
substantiate
the
allegations.
When that
finding was
final it went
to the two
lines of
command: The
head of
mission in CAR
and the
OHCHR.
But, several
asked, why
didn't either
of these tell
the CAR
authorities?

Malcorra
said she would
have preferred
this case
hadn't
surfaced in
the media and
that it is
regrettable
member states
have had to
learn matters
from the
press. But
that, Malcorra
said, member
states have to
be aware that
the press
manipulates
everything.
Several states
talked about
the UN image
and
credibility to
which Malcorra
said she was
very sad with
those comments
because if not
for the UN
these troops
could have
gotten away
with these
disturbing
acts. She also
said this was
a clear case
of damned if
you do damned
if you don’t.
But what about
the cover up?
What about
Ladsous?

Malcorra said
that “no other
element had
been taken
into account”
for Kompass'
firing. But
member states
were aware of
Paragraph 9 of
the UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling
reinstating
Kompass. As
noted, one
Permanent
Representatives
(and several
other
diplomats)
told Inner
City Press
that Ladsous
should resign.

Malcorra
didn’t even
address the
Otis report on
whistleblowers
- which Inner
City Press has
been asking
Ban's
spokesman
about,
repeatedly --
but assured
member states
that due
protections
are in place
and that an
adequate
policy exists.

Malcorra said
she looks
forward to
working
further on the
UN convention
in paragraph
57 of the SG
report on SEA
and agrees
that there are
systemic
flaws, and
therefore
there will be
a review of
all the
processes.

According to
sources in the
meeting --
Inner City
Press asked
and was told
to inquiry
with member
states --
the
Legal Counsel
and head of
OLA qualified
as excellent
the
cooperation
with the
French
Authorities
and that the
lifting of
immunity so
far hasn’t
been necessary
because at
this stage its
very general
requests of
information
that the UN
promptly has
given to the
French
authorities.
For the sake
of efficiency
hasn’t gone
through the
lifting of
immunity
process but if
a trial or
judge becomes
involved they
will do it
quickly at a
later stage.
Several member
states were
dubious. The
EU, Inner City
ress is
informed, said
“accountability
starts at the
top.”

Malcorra
left
unanswered why
the host
state, the
CAR, was not
involved. She
is said to
have ignored
the specific
question on
the status of
the OIOS
investigation.
She ignored
the complaints
about
under-reporting
saying that
the trend of
decrease was
very clear and
that the USG
of DFS would
go into
details (what
he did,
genially, was
repeat the
Secretary
General's
report).

An impartial
investigation
was called
for, from both
sides of the
Atlantic and
elsewhere.
There was a
refrain
afterward:
Ladsous should
resign."

A well-placed
African
Permanent
Representative
before the
meeting told
Inner City
Press before
the meeting
that Ladsous
should resign.
But with him
conveniently
absent, would
others be left
holding the
bag, trying to
explain why
he, Ladsous,
appears in the
UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling as urging
that the whistleblower
resign?

Back on May 8,
Inner City
Press asked US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
about both
issues - the
UN's failure
to tell the
CAR
authorities,
and Ladsous'
"surprising"
role, as High
Commissioner
Zeid put it
earlier in the
day. Video
here and
embedded
below. Then
Inner City
Press asked
the UN
Spokesman,
Stephane
Dujarric,
about the
contradiction;
for the first
time, he gave
a timeline.
From the UN
transcript:

Inner
City Press:
Iwant to ask
you about
these alleged
rapes in the
Central
African
Republic.
Prince Zeid
[Ra’ad
al-Hussein]
held a press
conference
today.
Just as an
aside, I would
have liked to
have seen it
announced from
here on this
very
topic.
And he said…
he was asked
directly about
what I've been
asking you
about, the
statement in
the UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling that
the
Under-Secretary-General
of
Peacekeeping
asked the
whistle-blower
to
resign.
And it was
said, and this
is why I want
to ask you,
because I know
you said you
don't agree
with it, but
this was a
statement that
was not
contested at
the time by
the
respondent.
So, this means
that the UN…
the people
involved saw
the claim and
didn't have
any problem
with it.
I'm not saying
that that
means it's
true.
When you say
you don't
agree with it,
is that a
personal
position or a
UN position?

Spokesman
Dujarric:
I don't think
I said I
didn't agree
with it.
I said you're
taking it as
fact.
It's his
position.

Inner City
Press:
Which the UN
didn't
disagree with.

Spokesman:
I'm just
saying it's
his position.

Inner City
Press:
My question on
this is, he
said he'd like
to say more,
but would say
it to some
forthcoming,
apparently,
investigative
commission.
Ambassador
[Samantha]
Power at the
stakeout said
the same
thing, that
all of this
needs to be
looked at
independently.
So, what's the
status of
that? Is
the
Secretariat
having any
role in that?

Spokesman
Dujarric:
There's
obviously the
OIOS [Office
of Internal
Oversight
Services]
inquiry going
on into Mr.
[Andres]
Kompass and
into
everything
related to
that.
You know, I
think the aim
right now is
to ensure
accountability
for the
victims of
these alleged
rapes and
horrendous
abuse [that]
these young
children
suffered at
the hands the
soldiers.
That's… that
should be
everyone's
aim.
Obviously,
there will
come a time I
think when we
will need to
take a look at
how this issue
was handled,
but I will
also add that
there is
obviously an
internal
investigation
through OIOS
and looking at
Mr.
Kompass.
At this point,
I don't have
anything to
add.

Inner City
Press:
The other
thing…
something you
said yesterday
was about
this, there
was no harm to
the French
investigation
by not lifting
immunity
because they
were written
questions that
were
answered.
There's an
article in Le
Monde today
that says
that, yeah,
written
answers were
provided seven
months after
the questions
were proffered
and was
provided on 29
April, which
just happened
to be the date
on which the
exposé was
first
published.
I'm wondering…
you can read
Le
Monde. I
can read it to
you.
But, that's
what they are
saying,
basically.

Spokesman:
You know, I
think that
there are
different
timelines
going on
here.
The prosecutor
in Paris has
his own
timeline.
What I can
tell you is
that on 10
October, the
Permanent
Mission of
France of the
UN sent a note
verbale to the
Secretary-General,
to the Office
of Legal
Counsel with a
request from
the… from a
French
judicial
authority, a
vice-prosecutor,
confirming
they had a
hard copy of
the report,
which
obviously had
gone from Mr.
Kompass,
requesting for
us to waive
the immunity
of the
investigator,
the OHCHR
[Office of the
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights]
investigator,
who authored
the report and
allowed him to
be
interviewed.

Following
consultations
internally,
which
obviously
involve the
Mission in the
Central
African
Republic,
which involved
OLA [Office of
Legal
Affairs],
which involved
UNICEF, which
involved the
Office of High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights, we
wrote back,
saying that we
will fully
cooperate,
that we are
offering to
send them a
copy of the
redacted
report.
And again,
here, I can't
stress enough
the importance
of shielding
the identities
of the
victims.
I mean, there
are a number
of countries
in Europe, for
example, where
it is illegal
to share the
names of rape
victims or of
minors who
have gone
under child
abuse, so I
think that the
issue of
protecting the
names of the
witnesses and
those who have
been abused is
primary.

We also told
them that the
chief
investigator
was right now
serving in a
post in Chile
and will
provide
responses in
writing to any
questions put
forward by
French
investigators.
We stressed
that this
cooperation
was done on a
voluntary
basis without
any prejudice
to the issues
of privileges
and immunity.
That was a
letter that we
wrote to the
French
authorities on
5
November.
On 6 February
of 2015, we
received a
letter from
the French
mission
transmitting,
obviously,
documents that
had gone from
their own
judicial
authorities,
the written
questionnaire
and which was
for the
investigator
and
reiterating
the request to
lift the
investigator's…
the
investigator's
immunity.
That was on 6
February.

On 30 March,
we reiterated
our full
cooperation to
the
French.
We provided
them with a
copy of the
redacted
report.
We transmitted
to them the
copies of her…
the questions
and answers,
with the
answers
provided by
the
investigator.
We confirmed,
yet again,
that there was
no need to
lift immunity
because this
cooperation
would be done
on a voluntary
basis without
any prejudice
to the
investigation…
to our
immunities.
I think it
serves to
remind people…
you know, the
issue of
immunity, I
think, is one
that is not
always fully
grasped by
those that
don't cover
the UN on a
regular
basis.
The UN lifts
the immunities
of its staff
members in a
number of
cases when
they need to
testify in
front of
judges, in
front of
courts.
We do
that.
The immunity
is not there
to stand in
the way of
justice being
served.
At this point,
if there's no
need to lift
the immunity,
it's not
lifted.
If there is a
need to lift
the immunity
to provide
testimony
before a judge
or a court in
a legal
proceeding, it
is
studied.
It is very
often done.

So, I think
we're looking
at different
timelines.
I think
different
bureaucracies
have different
timelines.
I've given you
ours.
The prosecutor
clearly has
his or her
own; I don't
know the
gender of the
prosecutor.
That's where
we are.

Inner City
Press:
Just one
follow-up.
I appreciate
that.
This will be
the… there's
one date you
didn't mention
there, which
is 12 March
2015, in which
the
whistle-blower
was summoned
in and told to
resign.
He said and
was
uncontested by
High
Commissioner
of the Office
of Human
Rights at the
request of the
Under-Secretary-General
of
Peacekeeping.
So, my
question is,
what was the
problem… I
understand
everything
about
protecting
witnesses.
If the
information
presumably is
provided to
prosecutors,
like there are
rules against
it, but it's
not illegal
for one
investigative
authority to
share the
information
that could
bring about a
prosecution
with that
prosecuting
authorities;
what's the
problem with
that?

Spokesman:
I think,
again, on Mr.
[Hervé]
Ladsous, I
think he spoke
to it… he
spoke to it at
the
stakeout.
I've said what
I've had to
say about Mr.
Kompass's
allegations.
I think the
High
Commissioner
spoke at
length and
eloquently
this morning,
so I have
nothing to
add. I
think it is
vital for the
work of the
human rights
organs of this
Organization
that, when
people give us
testimony with
the
understanding
that it will
be kept
confidential,
that it is in
fact kept
confidential.
I think the
High
Commissioner
said clearly
that the
investigative
responsibility,
the criminal
investigative
responsibility,
is in this
case with the
French
soldiers with
the French
authorities.
It is with
national
authorities.

The human
rights
mechanisms in
this
organization
conduct a lot
of commissions
of
inquiry.
We have ones
going on on
Syria, on the
[Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea], to
name just
two.
People give us
testimonies
with the
understanding
that we will
be… we will
guarantee that
this… their
names will be
kept
confidential.
I think that
is exactly the
issue here, is
that when
people give us
testimony with
the
understanding
that it be
kept
confidential,
we have a
responsibility
to keep that
confidential.
The handling
of Mr.
Kompass' case
administratively,
what was said,
what was done
is being
reviewed
internally.

Inner
City Press:
One issue that
has arisen
that may not
even need to
wait for an
investigation
is that the
Central
African
Republic says
that they were
never told of
this, and
given that
these were
their
citizens, I
wonder if
you—does the
U.S. think
that when the
UN system
becomes aware
of charges
such as these,
that the host
country should
be told?
There’s also
this issue, in
the UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling, that
the Under
Secretary
General of
Peacekeeping
was reported,
and the UN
didn’t seem to
dispute it, to
have said that
the
whistleblower
should resign
or be
suspended. And
I wonder, this
seems like a
pretty serious
charge. What
do you think
of that? Do
you think that
that is
appropriate?
What do you
think of the
treatment of
the
whistleblower
who brought it
to light?

Ambassador
Power: "I
think, on a
lot of these
issues, we’re
all going to
be better off
if we allow an
impartial
investigation
to take hold.
And, I think,
you raise a
really, really
important
issue about
host country
involvement,
and we’d want
to, again, get
the facts on
that.
Certainly, it
is the case
that the host
country
itself, of
course, has
the sovereign
responsibility
for the
protection of
its citizens,
and so,
looking at
what role
Central
African
Republic
authorities
played or
didn’t play
has to be part
of this.

"And then, in
terms of the
individual who
disclosed the
allegations,
who worked for
the Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights, again,
it’s extremely
important that
any individual
who comes into
possession of
allegations of
this gravity
acts swiftly.
It is also
extremely
important that
victim and
witness safety
be a very
significant, a
primary
consideration
as well. And
so again, the
impartial
investigation
will look at
the handling
and how both
the issue of
speed and the
issue of
victim and
witness
protection—how
those issues
were handled."

As noted, on
May 8, High
Commissioner
Zeid held a
press
conference,
and twice
refused to
comment on why
Ladsous was
said to have
pressured to
fire or
suspend the
whistleblower.

Inner City
Press has
covered
Ladsous' role
from the
beginning, and
highlighted
his appearance
in Paragraph 9
of the UN
Dispute
Tribunal
ruling
reinstating
Kompass. On
May 7, Ladsous
told Inner
City Press, "I
deny that" -
then refused
to take
questions.

Zeid
was asked, and
first time
said he should
first give his
view of the
pressure to
the
investigator,
not the media.

The
second time,
he said he was
surprised to
read it -- his
Office did not
contest that
part of the
ruling,
effectively
admitting it
-- and that
the head of UN
Peacekeeping
should not
have been
intervening
about a non-UN
force. Video here.

Neither
he nor the
questioners in
the room in
Geneva said
the obvious:
Ladsous is a
longtime
French
diplomat; it
is not rocket
science to
read Paragraph
9 as him
(inappropriately)
still working
for "his"
country.

Zeid
said other
things we'll
report later;
he alluded to
the need for a
Commission of
Inquiry. Some
ask, will
Ladsous quit
before then?
Or after?

Early on May
8, UN system
staff
complained to
Inner City
Press that UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid of
Jordan, in a
closed staff
meeting on May
8, tried to
downplay the
scandal, going
so far as to
blame imams in
Bangui for not
playing their
role.

But it was
OHCHR which
didn't even
give the
report of the
rape of CAR
children to
CAR
authorities,
only to the
French.

In places,
Zeid appeared
to try to use
his record ten
years ago on
sexual abuse
to shift the
blame to
imams.
Inner City
Press has
shown a
failure by his
Office to act
on past
leaking, to
Morocco. We'll
have more on
this.

On May 7,
Inner City
Press asked
more questions
about this -
including to
Herve Ladsous
himself.

After a long
closed-door
consultation
meeting of the
Security
Council,
Ladsous
emerged. Inner
City Press
asked him,
based on
Paragraph 9 of
the UNDT
ruling, Why
did you ask
Kompass to
resign?"